assign_card

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral fact that the tool replaces current assignees, which is a destructive update. This is sufficient for a simple mutation tool, though it omits details like authentication requirements or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations in a clean list format.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's core function and parameters adequately. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but for a simple mutation, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter: card_ref as 'Card reference, e.g. 'ON-914'' and assignee_ids as 'List of user IDs. Pass an empty list to unassign all.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action: 'Set the assignees on a card, replacing any current assignees.' The verb 'set assignees' and resource 'card' are explicitly mentioned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_card_label' or 'update_card'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'replacing any current assignees' and provides guidance for unassigning ('Pass an empty list to unassign all'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., 'update_card' might also set assignees) or provide any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.